From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Masters Subject: Re: Shorten efi regions output Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 00:48:58 -0500 Message-ID: <54BF3DCA.4070708@jonmasters.org> References: <20141209095843.GA3990@pd.tnic> <20141210021741.GA3280@darkstar.nay.redhat.com> <20141210104627.GA17053@pd.tnic> <20150105140332.GB3163@console-pimps.org> <54AAA723.1070605@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54AAA723.1070605@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Laszlo Ersek , Matt Fleming , Borislav Petkov Cc: Dave Young , linux-efi , Ard Biesheuvel , Matt Fleming , Ricardo Neri , lkml List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On 1/5/15, 10:00 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 01/05/15 15:03, Matt Fleming wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Dec, at 11:46:28AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:17:41AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: >>>> I have same feeling with you, it is too long for most of people. >>>> >>>> Since the printk code are for EFI_DEBUG, they are around the #ifdef >>>> so I would like to see a kernel param like efi_debug=on, so only >>>> efi_debug is specified then these verbose messages are printed. >>>> Without the param kernel can print some basic infomation about the >>>> memory ranges. >>>> >>>> In arm64 code there's already a uefi_debug param it can be moved to >>>> general code so that there will be a goable switch. >>> >>> Hmm, makes sense to me. Maybe we should really hide those behind a >>> debug switch, the question is whether asking the user to boot with >>> "efi_debug=on" in order to see the regions is ok. And I think it is ok >>> because we do that when debugging other stuff so I don't see anything >>> different here. >>> >>> And then when they're disabled by default, we don't really need to >>> shorten them as they're pure debug output then. >>> >>> Matt? >> >> I'm fine with disabling the EFI memory output regions by default. >> >> Printing the regions is still useful for debugging, but like you >> mention, we frequently ask users to enable other debug options when >> tracking down issues. >> >> Laszlo, would you be OK with that? > > Sure. Pardon my intrusion into this thread (just going over the past month's LKML for things I missed). I'd like to see some map output by default in the kernel. We have on a number of occasions found just this output useful in debugging boot issues on ARM servers and I suspect that will remain the case over the coming months. Sure, you can always tell someone to reboot, but then you have to rely on them doing it. Jon.